Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Drew]

You have not even produced one.

No whitney - you cannot say this (well, you can say, but it is manifestly untrue). I have provided a number of examples. Please deal with them and do not pretend that I did not provide such examples.

 

[Drew]

Yes brother, its very simple. Its says : do not go beyond that which is written.
and Yes again, the Bible is the only source of instruction. Our only rock to stand on.Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


The modern church has a problem. They do not know that the Bible is indeed THE Word of God. Perfect in all it says.

Cornelius, you are not addressing my post. Please actually deal with what I wrote - the examples of the cancer and sola scriptura. Please do not simply re-state your position and ignore my material.

 

[Cornelius]

Cornelius, you are not addressing my post. Please actually deal with what I wrote - the examples of the cancer and sola scriptura. Please do not simply re-state your position and ignore my material.

I am afraid I have to stick to the Word brother. I cannot just give opinions based on human reasoning. I gave you the verse that says you must not go beyond what is written. You may believe it, or try and go around it. We all have that choice in life. But we cannot ever say: "Lord ,we did not know "

 

[Drew]

I know this will sound combative, but this thread could be used to show students examples of errors of logic and improper debate practices. Among the many errors repeatedly made in this thread, by multiple posters, we have these:

1. Forgetting that the burden of proof is on the OP - it was the OP who asserted that infant baptism is not scriptural. Posters have made the error of believing that the OP's thesis can only be overturned by providing positive arguments in favour of infant baptism. In fact, all that needs to be done to overturn the thesis of the OP is to demonstrate errors in his logic. And this has been in spades.

2. Believing that it is acceptable to take the phrase "repent and be baptized" and transform it to "repent and then be baptized". This is to add to the word of God and change the meaning. Westtexas - to his / her credit - is the exception; he / she actually argued that the original Greek has this "repent and then be baptized" sense. But while this is good to know, it does not support the OP;

3. Believing that examples establish a general principle. This is simply not correct logic.

4. Begging the question - assuming the very thing that one should be arguing for. Thus, we have people insisting that one has to believe prior to baptism without actually having made the case Biblically;

5. Ignoring other poster's material - At least two posters have ignored my examples of "things Christians are supposed to do" and yet which are not prescribed in the Bible.

....and there may well be more.

 

[Cornelius]

Well brother , I really have posted what the Bible says about baptism. I have been on forums enough to know that nobody ever changes their view on these issues. I normally post for those who only read There are many who only read these treads. The posters normally do not change, but many readers recocnize the truth when they see it.

The truth is simple " Only believe the Word of God" do not add your opinions and the opinions of others to it, because it is eternally dangerous to do that. Value your soul and value the truth above the opinions of men. Man can never be more than he is. Only God is righteous and He alone has the truth. Trust His Word and allow it to grow in your heart. That is the only way we are going to survive.

Pro 7:1 My son, keep my words, And lay up my commandments with thee.
Pro 7:2 Keep my commandments and live; And my law as the apple of thine eye.
Pro 7:3 Bind them upon thy fingers; Write them upon the tablet of thy heart.


blessings
C

 

[Drew]

I am afraid I have to stick to the Word brother. I cannot just give opinions based on human reasoning. I gave you the verse that says you must not go beyond what is written. You may believe it, or try and go around it. We all have that choice in life. But we cannot ever say: "Lord ,we did not know "

Please stop with the evasion. I suspect you will dodge these questions, since I suspect that you know you cannot answer them and maintain your position, but I want the record to show that you are simply avoiding difficult questions. Here are the questions (whitney, will you also please answer these questions):

1. Do you believe that we should treat cancer patients with chemotherapy?
2. Is there any Biblical statement advocating treating cancer with chemotherapy?
3. Do you believe that women should be given equal pay to men for equal work?
4. Is there any Biblical statement that women should be paid the same as men?
5. Do you believe that an airline pilot who is legally drunk should be allowed to pilot a commercial airplane?
6. Is there any Biblical statement that would prohibit a drunk pilot from flying a commercial airplane?
7. If it is discovered that many valuable mineral resource exist on the moon, and if technology exists to bring them to earth cheaply and with no risk, and many lives would be improved if we did this, should we do it?
8. Is there any Biblical text authorizing mining from the moon?

I look forward to your answers.

 

[Drew]

The truth is simple " Only believe the Word of God" do not add your opinions and the opinions of others to it, because it is eternally dangerous to do that.

I suggest that you are using this "strategy" because you are effectively cornered in terms of the actual argument. You have more or less suggested "if its not in the Bible, it should not be done". Well, I have given a number of examples of things that are clearly wise and good to do, and yet which are not in the Bible. I suspect you know that these examples are sound. So what do you do? You start to lecture me against the evils of "human reason". Is it a co-incidence that you do this at the precise point in the interaction where some very difficult questions have been posed? Let the reader decide.

Quite often in such discussions, one will encounter the critique “you are using human wisdomâ€. The clear intent is to dismiss the actual content of an argument by implying that since the argument is expressed using the tools of human reason, it must be viewed with suspicion. Of course, such a critique does not work.

This is not difficult to see. In each and every case, the person who levels the “you are using human wisdom†critique is demonstrably guilty of the very behaviour he is critiquing. After all, in order to establish any point whatsoever, one is basically forced to deploy such human reasoning skills as reading, interpretation, generalization from specifics, etc. So no one can claim to transcend human reasoning – we all use it and have no other choice. I cannot speak for other readers, but I have yet to experience some other person beaming truth directly into my mind, without having to use the tools of human reason. Everyone uses language, everyone uses logic, everyone constructs arguments.

To the amusement of many of us, one will occasionally encounter a poster who, while admitting that his argument is expressed using human reason, nevertheless claims that his position has been revealed to him as the correct one by the Holy Spirit. One need not be Albert Einstein to see the problem with this – clearly, people holding opposite positions can make the same claim. No objective reader of any wit at all is going to accept mere claims that such and such a position has been revealed as the correct one by the Holy Spirit.

However, there is something even more fundamentally problematic in any critique that appeals to the folly of human reason. Consider this well-known passage from Romans, chapter 12:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…

Paul is stating something here that entirely deconstructs the “you are using human reason†critique. Paul clearly sees a renewing transformation of the human mind as a mark of progress on the path to Christlikeness.

 

[Cornelius]

Paul clearly sees a renewing transformation of the human mind as a mark of progress on the path to Christlikeness.[/FONT]

Amen he does We are to renew our minds so that they can come in line with the mind of Christ. As you accurately pointed out, that is the path of progress. Seeing that... the Word was God. Joh 1:1 and Jesus Christ is God, the only path is the be transformed in our minds by the Word of God.

Rom 12:2 And be not fashioned according to this world: (That would include all the things of the world, worldly knowledge, worldly wisdom, teachings of humans etc) but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

So the object is that we may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God ! And where do we find that good and acceptable and perfect will of God ? Amen ! In the Word of God.

 

[Drew]

Amen he does We are to renew our minds so that they can come in line with the mind of Christ. As you accurately pointed out, that is the path of progress. Seeing that... the Word was God. Joh 1:1 and Jesus Christ is God, the only path is the be transformed in our minds by the Word of God.

Rom 12:2 And be not fashioned according to this world: (That would include all the things of the world, worldly knowledge, worldly wisdom, teachings of humans etc) but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

So the object is that we may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God ! And where do we find that good and acceptable and perfect will of God ? Amen ! In the Word of God.

Cornelius - please be reasonable. Have you read all my recent posts. If you have, I can only conclude that are deliberately not taking responsibility for engaging in proper, honest debate. Yes, you are couching your posts in kind, polite language. But you are simply not engaging in fair debate.

I have asked you some questions, and given some other material that you have not yet addressed. Please take appropriate ownership of your position and address these questions and this material.

 

[Cornelius]

Brother you cancer argument is again just human and mean nothing in regard to baptism. The Bible says : 1Pe 2:24 who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed.

In fact here God judges somebody for going to a doctor and not to Him :

2Ch 16:12 And in the thirty and ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet; his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to Jehovah, but to the physicians.
2Ch 16:13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.

So my answer would be "No" we are not told to take a cancer patient to a doctor for chemo. The Bible gives us the alternative : Exo 15:26 and he said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of Jehovah thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his eyes, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I have put upon the Egyptians: for I am Jehovah that healeth thee. which of course brings us right back to the Word only. We have to listen to the Word , obey it and then God will heal us.

 

[Drew]

Brother you cancer argument is again just human and mean nothing in regard to baptism. The Bible says : 1Pe 2:24 who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed.

In fact here God judges somebody for going to a doctor and not to Him :

2Ch 16:12 And in the thirty and ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet; his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to Jehovah, but to the physicians.
2Ch 16:13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.

So my answer would be "No" we are not told to take a cancer patient to a doctor for chemo.

From other interactions with you, I know that you hold this position - one that I suggest that the vast majority of Christians would hold to be exceedingly reckless and irresponsible. You are saying that we should not seek medical treatment for illness. You stand with a tiny minority in holding suvh a view. Now, to be fair, this does not mean you are wrong.

I will let the wisdom of your position speak for itself. But, to be fair to you, you are indeed, after some prompting, answering my questions. Thank you for that. And, indeed, if you are willing to sign up to "no medical treatment for cancer" you are, so far at least, being consistent with your "if its not in the Bible, then don't do it" position.

 

[Drew]

Hello Cornelius: While I appreciate your direct addressing of the "cancer" example, there is the "sola scriptura" example you have not yet dealt with - your view requires that you produce a Biblical mandate to embrace sola scriptura (assuming you do indeed hold to this doctrine, which perhaps you do not).

I look forward to your dealing with that question (as well as a number of other questions I have asked you and which, as of this moment, have not been answered - that's no crime, you need to be given adequate time).

 

[Cornelius]

From other interactions with you, I know that you hold this position - one that I suggest that the vast majority of Christians would hold to be exceedingly reckless and irresponsible. You are saying that we should not seek medical treatment for illness. You stand with a tiny minority in holding suvh a view. Now, to be fair, this does not mean you are wrong.

I will let the wisdom of your position speak for itself. But, to be fair to you, you are indeed, after some prompting, answering my questions. Thank you for that. And, indeed, if you are willing to sign up to "no medical treatment for cancer" you are, so far at least, being consistent with your "if its not in the Bible, then don't do it" position.

Brother I would never tell anybody not to seek medical attention. We must only go where we have faith to go all else is pure stupidity. I can only walk in what I truly believe. But with that said, the Lord has taken me through things to test what I believe. I am still thinking about if I should post my testimony about when I nearly died through poisoning last year November. I then had to choose if I believe the Word or not. I heard a voice saying : "Now you will die if you do not go to a hospital. All you believe is false and you will see today the error of your belief" God enabled me and strengthened my faith and I refused help. I went up to death's gates. I saw them. I walked on the Word (the promises) and called out to the Lord. I saw Jesus and spoke to Him. I very nearly died that day , but the Word saved me. I kept on repeating the promises and they were the stepping stones under my feet when I went through the valley of the shadow of death. That day I learned and saw how real the Word is and how much power it has. It was an amazing experience.

C

 

[whitney]

No whitney - you cannot say this (well, you can say, but it is manifestly untrue). I have provided a number of examples. Please deal with them and do not pretend that I did not provide such examples.

In my eyes, this is untrue, because we are dealing with spiritual matters, which are written in the Word, and you are bringing up wordly matters. Baptism is a spiritual matter, vaccines are a wordly matter - which one are we talking about? When we speak of worldly matters, then I need to get out of the Word and look to the world to see what it says. We are discussing a spiritual matter, so we need to look in the Word to find our answers.

2 Timothy 3:16-17All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Cornelius]

Hello Cornelius: While I appreciate your direct addressing of the "cancer" example, there is the "sola scriptura" example you have not yet dealt with - your view requires that you produce a Biblical mandate to embrace sola scriptura (assuming you do indeed hold to this doctrine, which perhaps you do not).

I look forward to your dealing with that question (as well as a number of other questions I have asked you and which, as of this moment, have not been answered - that's no crime, you need to be given adequate time).

Drew, I am not sure which questions you are referring to brother. But the reason I do not answer all questions on a thread, is that it will derail the thread .
"Scriptures only" I have already addressed . I can do no more but to give you the same verse again : 1Co 4:6 ...learn not to go beyond the things which are written;......

 

[Drew]

Brother I would never tell anybody not to seek medical attention. We must only go where we have faith to go all else is pure stupidity.

I politely suggest you are trying to have it both ways. You basically said "if its not in the Bible, we should not do it". And, if you are right, then, indeed, perhaps we should not baptize infants (since there is no instruction to do so).

Well, I suggest you cannot "personalize" your position. If you mean what you say, it applies to everyone. You did not say "if your faith allows it, only do what is in the Bible".

So please clarify: Do you believe that it is God's will that the Christian - you or anyone else - should reject conventional medical therapy?

 

[Cornelius]

You may of course open a thread about it

 

[Drew]

Drew, I am not sure which questions you are referring to brother. But the reason I do not answer all questions on a thread, is that it will derail the thread .
"Scriptures only" I have already addressed . I can do no more but to give you the same verse again : 1Co 4:6 ...learn not to go beyond the things which are written;......

No Cornelius, you can and should do more. You cannot, legitimately anyway, ignore pointed challenges to your position. I refer you to post 331 (item 2) and the questions in post 346. You absolutely must address these challenges if your position has any chance of being coherent. This is not a matter of derailing the thread - it is a matter of you "owning" your position.

I look forward to your answers.

 

[Cornelius]

I politely suggest you are trying to have it both ways. You basically said "if its not in the Bible, we should not do it". And, if you are right, then, indeed, perhaps we should not baptize infants (since there is no instruction to do so).

Well, I suggest you cannot "personalize" your position. If you mean what you say, it applies to everyone. You did not say "if your faith allows it, only do what is in the Bible".

So please clarify: Do you believe that it is God's will that the Christian - you or anyone else - should reject conventional medical therapy?

Let me then clarify. Its not me who says it, it is Jesus . He clearly tells us that these signs will follow only those who ...believe So forgive me if I led you to believe it was my opinion.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So let me repeat again: Do not go where you do not have the faith for. Only go to where you ....believe.

 

[Drew]

You may of course open a thread about it

Why the evasion? I asked you a question. Is my question not clear (I think it is).

Please note - evasion, no matter how polite, is still evasion.